When Piazza overturned Arkansas' ban on gay marriage Friday, it was a ruling that sent shockwaves throughout the country as Arkansas became the first Southern state to have legalized gay marriage.

And while it did not take long for same-sex couples to start lining up at the Carroll County Courthouse to receive marriage licenses Saturday (May 10), it also did not take long for members of the Arkansas General Assembly to start discussing possible impeachment proceedings against Piazza.

According to Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, he has been in touch with unnamed members of the House who are interested in pursuing the charges against Piazza.

"I was contracted earlier this morning (May 10) by some of the House members who are inquiring as to whether or not that could be done," he said. "The procedure is that the House of Representatives would bring impeachment (charges) against any elected official or judge who has violated their oath to uphold the Arkansas Constitution."

Once charges are brought, a trial would take place in the Senate.

According to Rapert, there is ample cause for the House to impeach Piazza, explaining that the judge overturned the 2004 constitutional amendment against the will of the 75% of voters who voted for the amendment that limited marriage to one man and one woman.

"With the Arkansas marriage amendment, this is a clear example where the will of the people has been trampled by one judge. …It flies in the face of the foundation of this (country). It is very disappointing when you see the will of a majority of our nation…when someone like an activist judge thinks their will is greater than the majority of our state."

Rep. Justin Harris, R-West Fork, confirmed that he would pursue impeachment of Piazza, though he has not been part of an organized group of other representatives pushing for impeachment.

"We ask you to interpret the Constitution," he said of judges. "It kind of opened my eyes to how important circuit judges are. But to have total disregard of our Constitution, that's why I would move forward with impeachment and going toward that."

Rep. David Meeks, R-Conway, is another representative in favor of impeachment.

"Based on yesterday's ruling and how it was done, yes, I would generally be in support of impeachment," he said.

Meeks said even though it appears to him that there is a growing call for impeachment, it would be difficult to even get impeachment proceedings to take place with the legislature out of session.

"I think it would be something that would be up in the air because the House would have to start it and I don't know, since we're not in session, if the governor would have to call a special session."

Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe has said on previous occasions that he supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman. But Beebe spokesman Matt DeCample said the governor would not call a special session to consider impeachment of Piazza.

"No, because when it comes to the judiciary, you don't try to impeach a judge just because you don't agree with his ruling," DeCample said. "That's what the appeals process is for. That's the path we already know it going to be pursued."

Asked whether there was a procedure in which the legislature could consider impeachment without the governor calling the General Assembly back into session, DeCample said he was unsure and referred questions to the Arkansas Attorney General's office, which is closed on Saturdays.

During the run up to Darr's resignation, there were questions on procedure since no impeachment has taken place under Arkansas' Constitution in modern history.

"Impeachment is not clear on how it should be done," Meeks said. "Because it hasn't been done in 100 years, there's not a procedure for how to go forward with it."

Even if House Republicans could convince Beebe to call a special session to consider articles of impeachment against Piazza, Speaker of the House Davy Carter, R-Cabot, said he would put a stop to any move toward impeachment, adding that his action would have nothing to do with Piazza's ruling.

"Notwithstanding the controversial subject matter of the decision, we are not going to impeach the circuit judge because members of the House don't like the decision," he said. "That's just not going to happen. That's a slippery slope. That's why we have separation of powers. That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard."

Carter continued, again stating, "I'm telling you that it's not going to happen."

He said such a move would fundamentally challenge the Constitutionally-established separation of powers in Arkansas and the United States.

"The General Assembly can't set precedent. I don't even know how you would do that. I don't know if it's possible. That's so far outside the boundaries of how this country has ran itself for centuries with separation of powers. I can't even get my mind around that concept to start impeaching circuit judges because we don't like their decisions. That's absurd. There's an election process. We have circuit judges that are elected, the Supreme Court, the appellate level. That's the way it works."

Advertisement:

DeCample echoed Carter's remarks, saying that a planned appeal by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel — who personally supports gay marriage but is defending the state's Constitution in his role as the state's top attorney — is the proper way to handle disagreements with judicial rulings.

"That would be pretty unprecedented to impeach a judge for doing the job he was elected to do, which is interpret the law as he sees it. And if, in fact, his interpretation is incorrect, then that's what appeals proceedings are for."

Harris took issue with Carter's view on separation of powers and his insistence on stopping any impeachment moves by House members.

"That is flying in the face of us as far as separation of powers with the judicial branch making (a legislative decision). I respect the speaker. He's an attorney, but that goes against what the Constitution says. There is separation of powers and that's why we can impeach a judge. … It surprises me that he would go that far. He's one man, but he cannot rule on what the majority of the body would say, which would be hard to get (a majority for impeachment). But my understanding is that it would only take one member to get impeachment (considered by the full body)."

With the speaker not on board, only time will tell if Republicans pursue impeachment this year or during the 2015 legislative session.

Comments

Impeach activist judges

Submitted by txkreddog1 (not verified) on Mon, 05/12/2014 - 8:49am.

As Huckabee pointed out, this liberal activist judge seems to think his black robe is a cape, and he is free to ignore the Arkansas constitution, and voters,in his all-knowing, all-compassionate wisdom. Carter, and the other gutless parasites in the legislature need to be replaced at the earliest opportunity. If we fail to do so we will deserve the pathetic excuse for leadership we will get.

"Activist" jidges

Shock Waves

Impeachment of this activist judge would send shock waves across the country. This time the shock wave would be in the other direction letting these liberal judges know they are answerable and they sure aren't infallible despite their ego.

reply

Marriage Equality

Submitted by marcus (not verified) on Tue, 05/13/2014 - 2:30pm.

Yeah, how dare he do his job and uphold the constitution of the United States! You would think that the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law for all Americans or something. Who does he think he is treating gay people like people?

Homosexuality as Mental Illness/Birth Defect

Mental illness and disability do not disqualify people from voting. So if a group is formed for political action via the voting booth, the more power to the group. Law and politics are driving the Gay marriage issue. I oppose gay marriage on other grounds but we are a nation of Constitutional Law, not a Theocracy or Dictatorship.

do your homework

How can you name Chris Piazza an activist judge? In 2002, the Arkansas Supreme Court found that the state statute that made sexual relations between people of the same gender a criminal act was unconstitutional. (Picado v. Jegley) Yet again, in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cole, the Arkansas Supremes struck down legislation barring unmarried couples from adopting. Those cases, much like Amendment 83 and Act 144, was about the fundamental right to privacy and equal protection of the laws. In Picado, five of the seven Arkansas Supreme Court justices agreed that the law violated a fundamental right to privacy and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws. On top of that, Piazza cited over 30 federal and state cases to reach his filed opinion. In particular, Piazza noted Ark Supreme Court Judge Brown’s comment “that Arkansas has a rich and compelling tradition of protecting individual privacy and that a fundamental right to privacy is implicit in the Arkansas Constitution.” I think we can all agree with Piazza and Brown on that. In anticipating backlash such as yours, Piazza also included a comment by Justice Scalia in his opinion that read, “’preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same sex couples.” Preceding that comment in his opinion, he included from the Loving case, “Neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.” The point here being, you are entitled to your moral disapproval, but that’s about it. As in a marriage between a man and a woman that you don’t feel should be wed, it is best to simply say, “Best wishes” and move on. If you can’t rejoice for others’ happiness then don’t sullen the moment for them.

How can you name Chris Piazza an activist judge? In 2002, the Arkansas Supreme Court found that the state statute that made sexual relations between people of the same gender a criminal act was unconstitutional. (Picado v. Jegley) Yet again, in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cole, the Arkansas Supremes struck down legislation barring unmarried couples from adopting. Those cases, much like Amendment 83 and Act 144, was about the fundamental right to privacy and equal protection of the laws. In Picado, five of the seven Arkansas Supreme Court justices agreed that the law violated a fundamental right to privacy and the guarantee of equal protection of ...>> Read the entire comment.

Total Disregard For The Constitution??

The only one with "total disregard of our Constitution" is this idiot. These homophobic rednecks are so ignorant and boring! Just as ignorant and boring as back when they were trying to stop interracial marriage! The never change or give up do they?! "Activist judges"... blah blah blah... "Will of the people" (ie: tyranny of the majority!)...blah blah blah...
Thank you Judge Piazza for bringing Arkansas into the 21st Century kicking and screaming and UPHOLDING the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution! You are a fair, decent and intelligent judge. ALL laws - no matter how many voters vote for them, no matter how many people support them - must pass constitutional muster. This amendment and others like it do NOT.